Journal of Marine Science and Application

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11804-018-0040-6

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Evaluation of the Hydrodynamic Performance of Planing Boat with Trim

Tab and Interceptor and Its Optimization Using Genetic Algorithm
Abdollah Sakaki 1 & Hassan Ghassemi 1 & Shayan Keyvani 1

Received: 30 December 2017 / Accepted: 8 May 2018

# Harbin Engineering University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Nowadays, several stern devices are attracting a great deal of attention. The control surface is an effective apparatus for improving
the hydrodynamic performance of planing hulls and is considered an important element in the design of planing hulls. Control
surfaces produce forces and a pitching moment due to the pressure distribution that they cause, which can be used to change the
running state of high-speed marine boats. This work elaborates a new study to evaluate the hydrodynamic performance of a
planing boat with a trim tab and an interceptor, and optimizes them by using an optimization algorithm. The trim tab and the
interceptor have been used to optimize the running trim and motion control of semi-planing and planing boats at various speeds
and sea conditions for many years. In this paper, the usage of trim tab is mathematically verified and experimental equations are
utilized to optimize the performance of a planing boat at a specificd trim angle by using an optimization algorithm. The genetic
algorithm (GA) is one of the most useful optimizing methods and is used in this study. The planing boat equations were
programmed according to Savitsky’s equations and then analyzed in the framework of the GA-based optimization for perfor-
mance improvement of theplaning hull. The optimal design of trim tab and interceptor for planing boat can be considered a multi-
objective problem. The input data of GA include different parameters, such as speed, longitudinal center of gravity, and deadrise
angle. We can extract the best range of forecasting the planing boat longitudinal center of gravity, the angle of the trim, and the
least drag force at the best trim angle of the boat.

Keywords Trim tab . Interceptor . Drag force . Genetic algorithm . Optimization algorithm

1 Introduction
The concept of planing boat was introduced in the late nine-
teenth century. The planing hull form remains one of the most
effective designs for high-speed marine vehicles that are
employed in military, commercial, and recreational activities.
Prediction of the forces acting on a planing hull is required for
hull form design, and knowing the performance of high-speed
vessels in different conditions is of great importance. At the
direct motion of a vessel, a pressure distribution is created at
the bottom of the vessel, thereby causing vessel trim and
resistance.
Hydrostatic pressure is generated at low speed (length Froude
number, Fn < 0.5), and hydrodynamic pressure is produced at
* Hassan Ghassemi
gasemi@aut.ac.ir
1
Department of Maritime Engineering, Amirkabir University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran
high speed (Fn > 0.7) (Blount and Codega 1992). A vessel is
planing when the Fn is greater than 1.2 (Fn > 1.2) (Benford
1991). We cannot set a clear line of demarcation between plan-
ing and non-planing conditions simply by referring to the
Froude number. During planing, the weight of the vessel is
mainly supported by hydrodynamic pressure loads. The hydro-
dynamic pressure both lifts the vessel and affects the trim angle.
The vessel motion changes dynamic pressure distribution,
trim, and draft of a planing boat. Trim variations may cause
additional resistance in the planing boat and create instabilities
such as porpoising instability in the planing boat (Ikeda and
Katayama 2000). Therefore, the trim needs to be controlled in
high-speed boats.
The study of planing surfaces was initiated by Sottorf.
Hydrodynamic experiments were conducted to obtain the
most favorable forms for planing boats, flying boats, and sea-
plane floats with respect to water resistance and seaworthiness
(Sottorf 1934). An important study on planing boats was con-
ducted at the Davison Laboratory at the Steven Institute of
Technology in 1947.

The hydrodynamic characteristics of prismatic planing sur-
faces were discussed and empirical planing equations were
given, which describe the planing-surface lift, drag, wetted
area, pressure distribution, impact factor, wake shape, spray
formation, dynamic stability, and parallel planing surface
(Savitsky 1964). Subsequently, several other studies were
conducted, such as the experimental and theoretical study of
Brown on planing surfaces with trim tabs. His experiments
were conducted on a 10° deadrise prismatic planing surface
over a range of speed both with and without full-span and
half-span trim flaps fitted at the transom. The lift, drag, and
pitching moment characteristics are summarized in a planing
formula that accounts for the effect of transom flaps and in-
cludes the flap hinge moments (Brown 1971).
A few years later, another paper was published by
Savitsky and Brown on the effects of controlling the
trim tabs. Other subsequent studies are related to the
pre-planing resistance of transom stern hulls, the effec-
tiveness of trim control flaps, the effect of bottom warp
on planing efficiency, the influence of reentrant transom
forms, and the seakeeping of planing hulls (Savitsky
and Brown 1976). Since then, the study of trim control
system became popular, and their usage in controlling
the additional trim of planing hulls became the focal
point of other studies. The most well-known trim con-
trol device of the high-speed planing boats might be the
trim tab.
In addition to empirical works for predicting the performance
of planing hulls, several other studies investigated the perfor-
mance of planing hulls through mathematical models. The most
famous and usable method for predicting the performance of the
planing hull is the model suggested by Savitsky (Savitsky 1964;
Savitsky and Brown 1976). As mentioned earlier, Savitsky’s
original method was further developed by Savitsky and
Brown, and a comprehensive study was conducted to extract a
mathematical model for predicting the performance of planing
hulls with trim tabs in different situations, such as smooth and
rough water (Savitsky and Brown 1976); Savander et al. (2002);
(Matveev and Ockfen 2009; Ferrando and Gaggero 2015; Veysi
et al. 2015; Brizzolara and Vernengo 2016).
Resistance tests of a systematic series of US Coast Guard
planing hulls were performed by Metcalf. They presented trim
angle and resistance of four models in various conditions in-
cluding different displacements and various centers of gravity
(CGs). One finding is related to the effect of longitudinal
center of gravity (LCG) location on the resistance per pound
of displacement. A favorable result was obtained with aft
LCG location at higher speeds and forward LCG location at
lower speeds. In addition, dynamic wetted surface area data
revealed an interesting trend with regard to high speed and the
variation of displacement. The dynamic wetted surface area of
a particular hull form and LCG location for all displacements
converge to the same value once the hull form is planing.
Journal of Marine Science and Application
Moreover, for the same hull form, a forward LCG location
increases the dynamic wetted surface area to which all the
displacements converge (Metcalf et al. 2005).
Begovic and Bertorello attempted to study the effect of
variation of deadrise angle and introduced four hulls. In three
models, deadrise angle varied from the stern to the bow of the
boat. Their observation indicated the complex behavior of the
wetted area and the stagnation line angle. The reported results
can be a useful reference when dealing with pre-planing and
planing hull form. They highlighted a speed range where the
warping of hull bottom and the increased deadrise angles of
the forward part of the hull do not significantly affect the
hydrodynamic resistance and identify a relative speed range
where they can be comparable to medium-deadrise
monohedral. This conclusion encourages the scheduled re-
search on seakeeping and dynamic instability evaluation of
non-monohedral forms aimed at providing a complete refer-
ence for planing hull form design. They also showed that keel
wetted length increases with an increase in the speed of the
warped hulls, whereas it decreases in the prismatic body
(Begovic and Bertorello 2012).
Three different planing hulls were introduced by Kim for
improving performance and seakeeping. The third model has
favorable resistance and seakeeping performance among the
three model ships. Its hull form will be optimized to improve
its hydrodynamic performance in the near future. Moreover,
stern appendages may be effective for reducing its required
power. For good seakeeping performance, the bow shape is to
be designed as a wave-piercing type (Kim et al. 2013).
A parametric study on the effects of trim tabs on the run-
ning trim and resistance of planing hulls was conducted by
Ghadimi et al. The effects of trim tab in two different practical
situations were examined. The results for both high-speed
boats with an optimized deflection angle show that if the plan-
ing hull is constructed and difficulties occur with the trim
angles, the best way to save the hull is to use either a fixed
or a controllable trim tab. However, this approach may in-
crease the resistance (Ghadimi et al. 2014).
The evolution of stern appendages in later years has led to
new contributions. The increase in the size and performance
of some large yachts has been accompanied by the develop-
ment of innovative trimming systems (Deakin and Scarponi
2009). Another study, which involved a series of model tests
to compare and determine the roles of the interceptor and the
trim tab, was suggested by MDI company using interceptors
of different heights but the same span size. Test results clearly
show the hydrodynamic advantages of interceptors over trim
tabs at different heights (Maritime-Dynamics Inc. 2011).
A preliminary study of a new stern device to improve the
efficiency of a fishing vessel was performed in 2010. The
project focused on the study of hydrodynamics at the stern
to achieve advantages, such as consumption reduction and
other improvements in some navigation parameters. A
A. Sakaki et al.: Evaluation of the Hydrodynamic Performance of Planing Boat with Trim Tab and Interceptor and Its...
particular type of experimental device with a combination of
depth and position was designed and tested in a fishing vessel.
Sea experiences have proven the validity of such a device in a
transom stern fishing boat. These results show the benefits in
the performance of the boat obtained by using the device with
a combination of angle and depth (Peláez et al. 2010).
Brizzolara used an interceptor at the maximum height of
200 mm on the steering interceptor of STENA HSS-1500
vessel with 127 m overall length and 40 knot speed
(Brizzolara 2003). Molini and Brizzolara introduced a poten-
tial flow model to predict pressure and lift force in front of the
interceptors (Brizzolara and Molini 2005). Hydrodynamics of
the interceptor on a 2D flat plate was studied by using com-
putational fluid dynamics (CFD) and experiments by
Mansoori and Fernandes at the Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro. Results show that the increase in pressure at the end of
the flat plate was proportional to the interceptor height. In
addition, the existence of interceptors can significantly in-
crease the lift force coefficient at high angles of attack propor-
tional to the interceptor height (Mansoori and Fernandes
2015).
Mansoori and Fernandes analyzed the hydrodynamics of
the interceptor analysis by conducting ultra-reduced model
test and dynamic CFD simulation. Results show that the in-
terceptor causes an intense pressure gradient, decreasing the
wet surface of the vessel and, quite surprisingly, the resistance.
This paper shows that, within a range, a better trim control is
possible. The height of the interceptor has an important effect
on interceptor efficiency, and it should be especially selected
according to the length of the vessel and boundary layer thick-
ness at the transom (Mansoori and Fernandes 2017a).
Another study on the interceptor was conducted in 2016 by
Mansoori in cooperation with Fernandes and presented an
interceptor hydrodynamic analysis for controlling the
porpoising instability in high-speed boats. Findings show that
the interceptor causes intense pressure at the stern bottom. It
also decreases the trim and resistance of the vessel and in-
creases the lift force coefficient, which directly affects the
porpoising instabilities. Results indicate that the interceptor
can completely control the porpoising phenomenon
(Mansoori and Fernandes 2016).
The latest research in this area was performed by Mansoori
and Fernandes to study the combination of an interceptor and
trim tab to prevent the negative effects of the interceptor. Their
results prove that the combination of an interceptor with a trim
tab shows better performance than either an interceptor or a
trim tab alone. Also, instead of increasing the interceptor
height to gain more lift, which could result in an intense neg-
ative trim, the use of an interceptor integrated with a trim tab is
better (Mansoori and Fernandes 2017b).
Hydrodynamic performance can be evaluated by using
stern appendages. We focused on trim tab and interceptor in
this study, and investigated the evaluation of hydrodynamic
performance of a planing boat with a trim tab control system.
For this purpose, the mathematical formulation of Savitsky’s
method and the effects of trim tab on forces and center of
pressure are explained. The procedure of Savitsky’s modified
method for planing hulls equipped with trim tabs is then in-
troduced in a code. After presenting the code and validating
the code, with the use of the genetic algorithm (GA), the hull is
optimized to diminish the drag force of the trim tab at a spe-
cific trim angle. The proposed method is used to examine the
performance of a planing hull, as analyzed by Savitsky and
Brown (Savitsky and Brown 1976). Finally, the improvement
of the hydrodynamic performance of a planing boat with a
trim control system by using GA is studied.
2 Hydrodynamic of Planing Boat
Planing hulls operate at different speed ranges, namely, dis-
placement, cruising, and planing ranges of speed. However,
different optimum trim angles exist for each operating speed.
Improving the planing hull performance at different operating
speeds requires continuous control of the trim angle during
operation. Trim tabs and interceptors were considered in this
research as controlling devices of boat trim angles. These de-
vices can be continuously adjustable to provide suitable trim
angles at any operating speed and loading condition.
To fully understand the effects of trim tabs and interceptors,
a short introduction about the mechanics of ships and planing
boats is given. Trim tabs are well-known appendages with a
relatively small size and are constructed in the form of a pro-
truding aft plane at an angle as an extension of the lower
surface of the hull. The most significant geometric parameters
of a trim tab shown in Fig. 1 are
& chord length (chord),
& size through the aft beam (span), and
& trim tab angle (angle).
Other aspects of the design of a trim tab are profile, varia-
tions in the thickness, and agreement with the hull. Trim tabs
are used to
& reduce operating costs and life cycle,
& save fuel,
& increase the speed of the boat, and
& decrease the amount of pollutants emitted into the
atmosphere.
The evolution of the stern apparatus has led to new contri-
butions in recent years. The increase in size and performance of
some large yachts has been accompanied by the development
of innovative trimming systems (Deakin and Scarponi 2009).
 Journal of Marine Science and Application

Its schematic representation is of a metal plate embedded

vertically in the stern, covering a portion of the aft beam and
with its lower edge protruding vertically below the transom
(Fig. 2). The interceptor is used to improve the hydrodynamics
performance of planing and semi-planing boats. Interceptors
are vertical blades installed symmetrically aft of the boat.
The interceptors cause changes in pressure magnitudes
around the vessel bottom and especially at the end of the hull
where they are located. The pressure variations have an effect
on resistance, draft height, and lifting forces, which may result
in improved control of the trim. On the basis of the latest
scientific achievements, the interceptor height should not be
higher than 60% of the boundary layer thickness at the tran-
som. For optimum efficiency, when the interceptor height
equals 60% of the boundary layer thickness, the interceptor
span length should be seven times the interceptor height
(Mansoori et al. 2017). The magnitude of the lift created by
the trim tab and the interceptor normally depends on their
Fig. 1 Trim tab features
dimension and flow velocity. However, other parameters
may influence the effectiveness of the trim tab and interceptor.
Figure 3 shows the effect of the arrangement of the trim tabs
The horizontal equilibrium of a planing boat with a trim tab
and interceptors on the modification of the added lift of the
and an interceptor is
boat whereby the resistance of the boat can be reduced and the
attitude of the vessel can be controlled. T cosðτ þ εÞ ¼ Rcosτ þ N sinτ þ LTrim‐tab sinðτ þ δÞ
This case is defined by a few variables that are related to the
geometry of the planing body and the trim tab. Moreover, the þ DTrim‐tab cosðτ þ δÞ ð5Þ
design speed and mass of the planing body are included. With
The pitching moment equilibrium of a planing boat with a
these variables, the output will be the trim angle and total
trim tab and an interceptor around the CG is calculated by
resistance. Computer programs have been specially designed
to perform an optimization process and develop design con-
tours for the best operating trim and optimum resistance.

2.1 Governing Equilibrium Equation

Planing boat theory was explained in the introduction, but a

better look on how the forces react on a planing hull is essen-
tial. Figure 4 shows the main forces that act on planing boats
with a trim tab and an interceptor.
Vertical equilibrium is given by
Δ0 ¼ N cosτ þ T sinðτ þ εÞ−Rsinτ ð1Þ

Horizontal equilibrium is

T cosðτ þ εÞ ¼ Rcosτ þ N sinτ ð2Þ

The pitching moment equilibrium around the CG equals

Nc þ Ra−Tf ¼ 0 ð3Þ

The vertical equilibrium of a planing boat with a trim tab or

an interceptor is given by
Δ0 ¼ N cosτ þ T sinðτ þ εÞ−Rsinτ
Fig. 2 Interceptor features
þ LTrim‐tab cosðτ þ δÞ−DTrim‐tab sinðτ þ δÞ ð4Þ
A. Sakaki et al.: Evaluation of the Hydrodynamic Performance of Planing Boat with Trim Tab and Interceptor and Its...
Fig. 3 Illustration of physical phenomena associated with interceptor (a)
and trim tab (b)
Nc þ Ra−Tf þ LTrim‐tab ðLCG þ bÞ þ DTrim‐tab ðVCG þ d Þ ¼ 0 ð6Þ
where b is the horizontal distance from the trim tab lift force
center to the transom, and d is the vertical distance from the
trim tab drag force center to the keel.
The vertical equilibrium of a planing boat with an intercep-
tor is given by
Δ0 ¼ N cosτ þ T sinðτ þ εÞ−Rsinτ
þ LInterceptor cosτ−DInterceptor sinτ
The horizontal equilibrium of a planing boat with a trim tab
and an interceptor is
T cosðτ þ εÞ ¼ Rcosτ þ N sinτ þ LInterceptor sinτ
þ DInterceptor cosτ
The pitching moment equilibrium of a planing boat with a
trim tab and an interceptor around the CG is calculated by
Nc þ Ra−Tf þ LInterceptor  ðLCGÞ þ DTrim‐tab  ðVCG þ kÞ ¼ 0
where k is the vertical distance from the interceptor drag force
center to the keel (Fig. 5).
Fig. 4 Equilibrium of forces acting on a planing boat with a trim tab
2.2 Governing Lift and Drag Equation
The lift force in the planing surface can consist of two
separate effects: dynamic reaction against the moving sur-
face and buoyant lift associated with the static pressure
corresponding to a given draft and trim. The total hydro-
dynamic drag of a planing surface consists of pressure
drag force developed by dynamic pressure acting normal
to the bottom and viscous drag acting tangential to the
bottom in both pressure and spray areas. If side wetting
occurs, then this additional component of viscous drag
must be added to the hydrodynamic drag acting on the
bottom of the planing surface.
Therefore, the lift coefficient is the parameter that gives
enough force to lift the planing body and is presented as fol-
lows:
Mg
F Lβ ¼ Mg→C Lβ ¼ ð10Þ
0:5ρV 2 B2
The planing boat method of Savitsky is used to calcu-
late all the parameters that affect the running state of a
planing boat. Although some assumptions are made in the
computation, this method is the most common tool that is
used to analytically describe a planing hull. First, the lift
coefficient of a planing boat with a deadrise angle β is
given by
ð7Þ
Δ
C Lβ ¼ ð11Þ
0:5ρV 2 B2
where Δ is the boat’s mass, ρ is the density of water, V is
the velocity, and B is the beam. The lift coefficient for the
planing hull when modeled as a flat plate, CL0, is
ð8Þ
C L0 ¼ C Lβ þ 0:0065βC L0
0:6
ð12Þ
where λ is the running mean wetted length-beam ratio
(Lm/B) and is calculated through an iteration of the fol-
lowing equation:
ð9Þ

2:5 
λ
C L0 ¼ τ 1:1
0:012λ þ 0:0055
0:5
ð13Þ
FnB 2
where τ is the trim of the planing boat and FnB is the
Fig. 5 Equilibrium of forces acting on a planing boat with an interceptor
 Journal of Marine Science and Application

beam Froude number. The total hydrodynamic drag Thus,

(DTotal), consists of both pressure drag resistance (Dp)


and friction drag resistance (Df), which is 1 Btanβ 1 Btanβ
LK ¼ 2λB þ ; LC ¼ 2λB− ð26Þ
2 πτ 2 πτ
DTotal ¼ DP þ D f ð14Þ
DP ¼ F Lβ τ ¼ Δtanτ ð15Þ Now the friction drag resistance, pressure drag resistance,
and total drag resistance can be calculated. The mean velocity
In this study, the skin friction coefficient (CF) is calculated over the bottom of the planing surface, Vm, is
by using the ITTC-57 formula. rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!
C Lβ
Vm ¼ V ð27Þ
D f ¼ 0:5ρV 2m SC F ð16Þ λcosτ
Where: The distance between CG and the center of pressure where
C F ¼ C F;ITTC þ ΔC F ð17Þ the hydrodynamic lift force acts is
0:075 c ¼ LCG−l P ¼ LCG−C P λB ð28Þ
C F;ITTC ¼ 2
h ðlogRe−2Þ i 0 1
ΔC F ¼ 111ðAHR; V Þ0:21 −404 C 2F;ITTC ð18Þ B C
l P ¼ λBB C
1
B0:75−
2 C ð29Þ
VLk m 2 @ FnB A
Re ¼ →υ ¼ 1:19  10‐6 ; AHR ¼ 150  10‐6 5:21 þ 2:39
υ s λ 2

where the Reynolds number is Re and the kinematic viscosity

To decrease the complexity of the planing hull shape
of the water is υ. After obtaining the Reynolds number and S,
and the fluid flow, the following assumptions are used in
the frictional drag can be calculated.
the Savitsky method: the running trim is in a steady state,
S ¼ S1 þ S2 ð19Þ the spray root line is considered straight, the deadrise
angle is constant over the entire wetted area, and a hard-
0 1 chine form is observed.
tan2 β B
B
B
2 C Some restrictions exist with the use of the Savitsky method
S1 ¼  C ð20Þ
sinβ 4@ 1 þ z max
A for the planing hull, i.e., λ ≤ 4, τ ≤ 15o. To prevent porpoising,
τ
Vt the trim angle should be less than the critical trim angle (τ
< τcrit). Critical trim angle is found by using Celano’s critical
B trim angle formula (Faison 2014)
S2 ¼ LC ð21Þ
cosβ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi !
C Lβ ‐0:2629
τ crit ¼ 0:1197β 0:7651
exp 15:7132 β ð30Þ
Here, β and τ are in radian. In the calculation, the wetted 2
length LK and LC can be obtained as follows
When lP ≠ LCG the hydrodynamic force will cause a trim
0:5ðLK þ LC Þ moment about CG, and the trim moment must be generated by
¼λ ð22Þ
B the lift force on trim tabs. According to the equilibrium of
LK −LC ¼ xS
moment about the CG

Thus, M Trim‐tab þ F Lβ ðl P −LCGÞ ¼ 0 ð31Þ

1
LK ¼ ð2λB þ xS Þ ð23Þ
2 The lift force due to the trim tab is

LTrim‐tab ¼ 0:5ρV 2 LCTrim‐tab BC LTrim‐tab ð32Þ

1
LC ¼ ð2λB−xS Þ ð24Þ
2 where LCTrim − tab is the chord length of the trim tab and is
calculated by
π
From B2 ¼ 2tanβ xS τ, we know C LTrim‐tab ¼ 2πsinαTrim‐tab ð33Þ
Btanβ
xS ¼ ð25Þ If we assumed the center of the lift force of trim tab locates
πτ
xCP Trim‐tab ¼ 0:75LCTrim‐tab from the trailing edge, then the
A. Sakaki et al.: Evaluation of the Hydrodynamic Performance of Planing Boat with Trim Tab and Interceptor and Its...
positive αTrim ‐ tab is used to acquire the downward lift force on
the trim tab. Thus, the distance from the center of the lift to the
CG is
xl ¼ ðLCTrim‐tab −0:75LCTrim‐tab Þ þ LCG
Thus, the trim tab moment is
M Trim‐tab ¼ F LβTrim‐tab  xl
Therefore, we obtained the equations
0:5ρV 2 LC Trim‐tab BC LTrim‐tab  ð0:25LCTrim‐tab þ LCGÞ ¼ M Trim‐tab ð36Þ
We can prove that these two equations are equivalent.
Thus, we can use one of them to obtain the possible combi-
nation of chord of the trim tab LC TB and the trim tab angle.
Dawson and Blount presented a way to find the equivalent
interceptor dimensions if the interceptor and the trim tabs are
assumed to have the same width (Dawson and Blount 2002;
Brizzolara and Villa 2009). First, the interceptor angle is given
by (Fig. 6)
αInterceptor ¼ 0:175αTrim‐tab þ 0:0154α2 Trim‐tab
The chord length of the interceptor is equal to the height of
the interceptor (hInt) and is calculated by Eq. (38)
hInterceptor
LCInterceptor ¼ →αInterceptor ¼ 90o →LCInterceptor
sinαInterceptor
¼ hInterceptor
According to Brown formulas, while using the equivalent
angle for the interceptor, the interceptor-added lift coefficient
is equal to (Brown 1971)
LCInterceptor
C LInterceptor ¼ 0:046 αInterceptor
B ð39Þ
→LInterceptor ¼ 0:5C LInterceptor ρB2 V 2
Furthermore, the added drag is calculated by
 
DInterceptor ¼ 0:0052LInterceptor αInterceptor þ τ
According to the moment equilibrium of the planing boat
with interceptor about the CG
M Interceptor þ F Lβ ðlP −LCGÞ ¼ 0
→M Interceptor ¼ LInterceptor  LCG
3 Computational Procedure and Validation
Case
3.1 Computer-Aided Program for Equilibrium Trim
ð34Þ
A computer program has been specially created to determine
the optimal resistance and the equilibrium trim angle. Through
an iterative process, the developed program is designed to use
ð35Þ planing hull data to determine all forces and moments acting on
that hull for a range of a boat’s velocities. This computer-aided
program is also equipped to improve the Savitsky prediction of
the planing boat resistance at a cruising speed range. To illus-
trate the process clearly, a flowchart is provided in Fig. 7.
3.2 Verification of Computer-Aided Program
with Experimental Data
The results of the written computer-aided program are com-
pared with the results obtained by Savitsky and Brown
(Savitsky and Brown 1976). This case is pertinent to a planing
boat with a trim tab whose characteristics are described in
Table 1. After computer program verification, the program
ð37Þ might be developed to add the process of controlling the trim
angle by using different controlling devices such as a trim tab
and an interceptor. Also, the program can be developed to
achieve the optimum trim angle through a proposed optimiza-
tion process, to attain the best regimes of the operating trim.
As seen in Table 1, the span of the trim tab is exactly equal
to the beam of the planing hull, thereby implying that the trim
tab uses the whole beam. This type of trim tab is called full-
ð38Þ span trim tab, and the cord of the trim tab is equal to 1. Results
of this case study are shown in Table 2 and compared against
the original results of Savitsky.
Table 2 shows that the results are fairly close. The trim
angle has a 2.41% error, while the total resistance has a
1.51% error. These errors are attributed to the number of used
decimals and can be natural.
ð40Þ
ð41Þ
Fig. 6 Configuration of the transom and equivalent angle for the
interceptor
 Journal of Marine Science and Application

Table 2 Comparison of Savitsky’s results and the computer-aided pro-

gram’s results

Savitsky’s results Calculated (paper results)

Trim angle/(°) 2.9 2.97

Total resistance/N 72 061 73 151

survives with high probability. Furthermore, the population of

Fig. 7 Flowchart of the computational process of the computer-aided
program
3.3 Optimization of Hydrodynamic Performance
of Planing Boat Using Trim Tab and Interceptor
The basic theories used in this paper are the analytical evaluation
of a planing boat with a trim tab and an interceptor and multi-
objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) for the optimization pro-
cess. To achieve an optimum planing boat, some constraints
could be considered objective functions that are used in
MOGA. In this study, optimization is conducted to optimize
the resistance at a specific trim angle. The optimization is per-
formed to achieve the minimum resistance and trim angle at a
specific speed. Therefore, no limitation in trim angle exists.
GA is a heuristic search and optimization technique inspired
by natural evolution. It has been successfully applied to a wide
range of real-world problems of significant complexity. GA is a
stochastic optimization technique inspired by the evolution pro-
cess of natural life. In GA, selection is performed in the popu-
lation of a certain generation so that an individual with high
fitness to the objective function in the optimization problem
the next generation is formed by crossover and mutation. As
alternation of generations proceeds, individuals with higher
fitness increase, and the most suitable solution is provided.
The above is a basic concept of GA.
In general, an individual is expressed by a binary string of 0
or 1 of the suitable number per one design variable in GA, and
this binary string is transformed to the design variable, which
is a real number. The chromosome of each individual is
expressed by binary strings of the same number as the number
of the design variables. Spaces expressed by binary strings
and real numbers are called genotype and phenotype spaces,
respectively. The mapping from phenotype to genotype is
called coding.
Shape optimization in ship hydrodynamics using CFD was
performed by Campana and Peri. In this paper, the optimiza-
tion was performed by using GA (Campana et al. 2006).
Gaggero and Gonzalez attempted to design contracted and
tip-loaded propellers by using boundary element methods
and to perform optimization by using GA (Gaggero et al.
2016). The drag force optimization of a planing craft with a
trim control system by using GA was conducted by Sakaki et
al. (2017). The fully automatic optimization chain was imple-
mented by adopting the modefrontier optimization environ-
ment to interface the Friendship-Framework (parametric def-
inition of the hull shape), the CFD codes developed by
CETENA S.P.A. (to predict the steady wave resistance and
unsteady seakeeping performances of each design candidate),
and MOGA (Biliotti et al. 2011).

Table 1 Case of
Savitsky and Brown Model of Savitsky and Brown features

Mass/kg 84 444
Beam/m 7.32
LCG from stern/m 10.675
VCG/m 0.5
Deadrise angle β/(°) 15
f/m 0.6
ε /(°) 0
Design speed/kn 25.4
Flap chord/m 0.305
Span/m 7.32 Fig. 8 Total resistance force of a planing hull in terms of velocity (bare
Flap deflection δ/(°) 5 hull, with a trim tab and an interceptor)
A. Sakaki et al.: Evaluation of the Hydrodynamic Performance of Planing Boat with Trim Tab and Interceptor and Its...

Table 3 General information about MOGA

MOGA settings

Type of parameter Rate or type of consideration

Population size 50
Iteration 750
Type of mutations Random number generation
Percentage of crossover/% 50
Type of crossover Two-point crossing over
Percentage of recombination/% 15
Type of selection Random selection Fig. 9 Total resistance force of a planing hull in terms of LCG (with trim
tab and an interceptor)

affect the performance of a planing boat with a trim tab and an

In this study, the input variables (lcg, β, and V) are assumed as
interceptor are boat velocity, LCG, and deadrise angle. After
the genotype and output variables (resistance and trim angle) as
optimizing the planing boat with a trim tab via GA, the optimum
the phenotype on both of which the genetic operations are ap-
resistance at a specific trim angle for the model of Savitsky and
plied. In each generation, selection functions pick the most sig-
Brown (Savitsky and Brown 1976) is R = 67 072.69 at a specific
nificant genes as the parents of the next generation and then the
trim angle of 1.924°.
crossing-over procedure is performed on them. Random genes
After optimization with the use of GA, the total resistance of
are added to the population as mutation functions, and this pro-
the planing boat with a trim tab is decreased to 6.9% at a trim
cedure is repeated until the ultimate criteria are established.
angle of 1.924° and LCG is 12.42 m from the transom. The
Different conditions can be set to stop the problem. In this paper,
optimization of the total resistance of a planing boat with an
the condition was to reach the number of iterations, which is set
interceptor caused a 7.26% decrease in the trim angle to 1.98°
to a maximum of 750. The flowchart of the optimization process
and LCG of 12.57 m from the transom. The results of GA opti-
approach is shown in Fig. 8. Any evolutionary optimization al-
mization of resistance force variation are presented in Figs. 10
gorithm needs to be configured by settings. The parameters for
and 11 with a trim tab and an interceptor, respectively.
this paper are shown in Table 3.

4 Results 5 Conclusions

The results for the planing hull with a trim tab and an interceptor
are summarized in Table 4. The total resistance force of the
planing hull with a trim tab and an interceptor in terms of velocity
and LCG are shown in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. The hydrody-
namic performance of a planing boat with a trim tab and an
interceptor were optimized by MOGA, which was described in
the beginning of Section 3.3. Some important parameters that can
Table 4 Results of GA for the case of Savitsky and Brown (Savitsky
and Brown 1976)
The major goal of this paper was to evaluate and optimize a
planing boat with an interceptor and a trim tab. The effects of
the trim tab and the interceptor in the same situations were stud-
ied separately. Overall, the planing boat with an interceptor ex-
hibits better reduction in resistance force than the planing boat
with a trim tab. The trim installation mechanism, such as an
interceptor or a trim tab, increases the lift forces and consequently
leads to trim control, lower draft height, and less drag forces.

Savitsky’s GA GA
results optimization optimization
with trim tab with interceptor

Total resistance/N 72 061 67 072.69 66 823.51

Trim angle/(°) 2.9 1.924 1.98
Velocity/(m·s−1) 25.4 25.4 25.4
LCG/m 10.675 12.42 12.57
Deadrise 15 15 15
angle/(°) Fig. 10 Total resistance variation for a planing hull with a trim tab during
optimization by GA
 Journal of Marine Science and Application

B Breadth of the boat

V Boat velocity
g Gravitational acceleration
Df Frictional resistance
S Wetted surface of the boat
v Kinematic viscosity of the water
α Trim tab angle
xcp Center of lift force of trim tab
xl Distance from the center of lift force of trim tab to center of
gravity
LCG Longitudinal center of gravity
VCG Vertical center of gravity

Fig. 11 Total resistance variation for a planing hull with an interceptor

during optimization by GA
References
This work optimized planing boats with a trim tab and an
interceptor by using Savitsky’s equations with GA. After validat- Begovic E, Bertorello C (2012) Resistance assessment of warped
hullform. Ocean Eng 56:28–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ing the calculated results using Savitsky’s results (Savitsky and
oceaneng.2012.08.004
Brown 1976), optimization was performed. Benford H (1991) Naval architecture for non-naval architects. Society of
The GA method uses three variables, Vn. LCG. β, which Naval Architects, Jersey ISBN 0939773082
affect the total resistance of the boat. In this study, the model Biliotti I, Brizzolara S, Viviani M, Vernengo G, Ruscelli D, Galliussi M,
of Savitsky and Brown (Savitsky and Brown 1976) was opti- Domenico G, Manfredini A (2011) Automatic parametric hull form
optimization of fast naval vessels. In 11th international conference
mized by only changing the LCG variables. Results show a on fast sea transportation (FAST), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA
decrease in the total resistance of the boat with an interceptor Blount DL, Codega LT (1992) Dynamic stability of planing boats. Mar
and a trim tab at a specific trim angle. Therefore, changing the Technol 29:4–12 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
LCG variables results in a change in the trim angle, thereby 281333731
lessening the total resistance. Brizzolara S (2003) Hydrodynamic analysis of interceptors with CFD
methods. In FAST2003, 49–56
GA is able to optimize all the variables. The performance of
Brizzolara S, Molini A (2005) Hydrodynamics of interceptors: a funda-
planing boats with variable deadrise angles was considered. mental study. In Proceedings ICMRT 2005, International
Optimization by changing the deadrise angle showed that the Conference on Maritime Research and Transportation, Ischia
total resistance decreased at different deadrise angles. The pro- (Naples), Italy, 19–21
posed method can be used as a proper optimization tool for Brizzolara S, Vernengo G (2016) A three-dimensional vortex method for
the hydrodynamic solution of planing cambered dihedral surfaces.
designing planing boats. Eng Ana Boundary Elements 63:15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enganabound.2015.10.008
Brizzolara S, Villa D (2009) A Systematic Cfd Analysis Of Flaps/
Nomenclature Interceptors Hydrodynamic Performance. In Proceedings 10th
International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST 2009),
M Displacement of boat Athens
FLβ Hydrodynamic force Brown PW (1971) An experimental and theoretical study of planing
β Deadrise angle surfaces with trim flaps. Stevens Inst of Tech Hoboken NJ
ρ Density of water
CL0, CLβ at zero deadrise angle Davidson Lab
CLβ Lift coefficient Campana E, Peri FD, Tahara Y, Stern F (2006) Shape optimization in ship
CP Pressure coefficient hydrodynamics using computational fluid dynamics. Comput
CF Frictional drag coefficient Methods Appl Mech Eng 196:634–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
CL TB Lift coefficient of trim tab cma.2006.06.003
CL Int Lift coefficient of interceptor
λ Mean wetted length-to-beam ratio Dawson D, Blount D (2002) Trim Control. Professional boatbuilder, nr
lp Longitudinal center of pressure 75 February/march, pp. 140–149
LK Keel wetted length Deakin B, Scarponi M (2009) Avoiding and solving problems in motor
LC Chine wetted length yacht design. YEF–Yacht Engineering Forum, www.wumtia.soton.
LTB Lift of trim tab ac.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/pages/SeatecYEF2009.pdf
DTB Drag of trim tab
MTB Moment of trim tab Faison LA (2014) Design of a high speed planing hull with a cambered
Lc TB Chord length of trim tab step and surface piercing hydrofoils. Thesis type, Massachusetts
αTB Trim tab deflection institute of technology
LInt Lift of interceptor Ferrando M, Gaggero S (2015) Open Source Computations of Planing
DInt Drag of interceptor
MInt Moment of interceptor Hull Resistance. Int J Small Craft Tech 157, Part B2. https://doi.org/
Lc Int Chord length of interceptor 10.3940/rina.ijsct.2015.b2.172
αInt Interceptor deflection Gaggero S, Juan G-A, Perez SM (2016) Design of contracted and tip
τ Trim angle loaded propellers by using boundary element methods and optimi-
FnB Beam Froude number zation algorithms. Appl Ocean Res 55:102–129. https://doi.org/10.
Rn Reynolds number
1016/j.apor.2015.12.004
A. Sakaki et al.: Evaluation of the Hydrodynamic Performance of Planing Boat with Trim Tab and Interceptor and Its...
Ghadimi P, Loni A, Nowruzi H, Dashtimanesh A, Tavakoli S (2014)
Parametric study of the effects of trim tabs on running trim and
resistance of planing hulls. Advanced Shipping and Ocean
Engineering, http://www.academicpub.org/asoe/paperInfo.aspx?
paperid=15826
Ikeda Y, Katayama T (2000) Stability of high speed craft. Contemporary
ideas on ship stability, 401–09. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-
008043652-4/50031-6
Kim DJ, Young KS, Jun YY, Pyo RK, Hwan KS, Gyu KY (2013) Design
of high-speed planing hulls for the improvement of resistance and
seakeeping performance. Int J Naval Arch Ocean Eng 5:161–177.
https://doi.org/10.2478/IJNAOE-2013-0124
Mansoori M, Fernandes AC (2015) Hydrodynamics of the interceptor on
a 2-D flat plate by CFD and experiments. J Hydrodyn Ser B 27:919–
933. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6058(15)60555-8
Mansoori M, Fernandes AC (2016) The interceptor hydrodynamic analysis
for controlling the porpoising instability in high speed crafts. Appl
Ocean Res 57:40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2016.02.006
Mansoori M, Fernandes AC (2017a) Hydrodynamics of the interceptor
analysis via both Ultrareduced model test and dynamic computa-
tional fluid dynamics simulation. J Offshore Mech Arctic Eng 139:
021101. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034615
Mansoori M, Fernandes AC (2017b) Interceptor and trim tab combination
to prevent interceptor's unfit effects. Ocean Eng 134:140–156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.02.024
Mansoori M, Fernandes AC, Ghassemi H (2017) Interceptor design for
optimum trim control and minimum resistance of planing boats. Appl
Ocean Res 69:100–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2017.10.006
Maritime-Dynamics Inc Report (2011) Interceptors/trim tabs/force pro-
du cers f or sh ip moti on con tro l . MDI R eport. http://
maritimedynamics.com/interceptor.pdf
Matveev KI, Ockfen AE (2009) Modeling of hard-chine hulls in transi-
tional and early planing regimes by hydrodynamic point sources. Int
Shipbuild Prog 56:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISP-2009-0052
Metcalf BJ, Lisa F, Elissa B, Jonathan S (2005) Resistance tests of a
systematic series of US coast guard planing hulls. Naval Surface
Warfare Center Carderock Div, Bethesda
Peláez G, Martín E, Lamas AM, Ulloa AF, Prieto D (2010) Preliminary
study of a new stern device to improve efficiency in a fishing vessel.
In First International Symposium on Fishing Vessel Energy
Efficiency, E-Fishing, Vigo, Spain, May
Sakaki A, Ghassemi H, Aslansefat K, Sadeghian M (2017) Optimization
of the drag force of planing boat with trim control system using
genetic algorithm. Ame J Mech Eng 5:161–166. https://doi.org/10.
12691/ajme-5-4-8
Savander BR, Scorpio SM, Taylor RK (2002) Steady hydrodynamic
analysis of planing surfaces. J Ship Res 46:248–279
Savitsky D (1964) Hydrodynamic design of planing hulls. Mar Technol 1
Savitsky D, Brown PW (1976) Procedures for hydrodynamic evaluation
of planing hulls in smooth and rough water. Mar Technol 13:381–
400
Sottorf W (1934) Experiments with planing surfaces report/patent num-
ber, NACA-TM-739
Veysi TGS, Bakhtiari M, Ghassemi H, Ghiasi M (2015) Toward numer-
ical modeling of the stepped and non-stepped planing hull. J Braz
Soc Mech Sci Eng 37:1635–1645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-
014-0266-4